Iran Iraq Nuclear Proliferation

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece today, titled “ObamaCare for Arms Control” by Daniel Henninger, excoriates the efforts of the Obama administration to sign an Iranian nuclear treaty without the support of Congress and the political opposition. The author claims that the initiative will not persevere without buy-in by the electorate represented by a vast majority of our elected lawmakers.

The author goes on to compare the tactics being used now by the president to those used in the enactment of Obamacare. “Just as ObamaCare was a massive entitlement program enacted with no Republicans support (unlike Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid), [Obama] is bypassing a traditional vote in the Senate.” The article indicates, “[An Iran nuclear deal] is going to be another ObamaCare, a poorly designed mega-project others will have to clean up later.”

The Senate is not sitting on its hands; it is working in a bipartisan manner to repel Obama’s ploy to bypass its constitutional responsibilities. “The heavily bipartisan Corker-Menendez bill, which would require the [Iran deal] to be submitted to Congress and which the White House has denounced, is a few votes away from a veto-proof majority.” It is inconceivable that a U.S. president would eschew his Congress and his own political party in this manner.

The president is attempting to “find” support by “substituting the judgment of the [United Nations] Security Council . . . for the consent from the U.S. Senate.” Keep in mind that the Security Council includes China and Russia, not exactly close allies of America.

The response from Sunni Arabs has been overwhelming against any deal with the Shiite-led government of Iran. The Saudi’s have indicated that it and its Sunni partners will demand the same nuclear accommodations as Iran. That means that Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan and the UAE could become nuclear. In the pressure cooker known as the Middle East, does the world want random counties with nuclear capabilities?

The author is critical of Obama’s “modus operandi.” He says that Obama “[structures] the issue as a choice between what he wants to do and an unacceptable extreme . . . With Iran, it’s Mr. Obama’s deal or a ‘rush to war.’”

According to the article, “political damage” has been inflicted on the “traditional relationships” between the presidency and those that the administration has “marginalized” (Congress).

The world does not need another rogue nuclear state. Incidentally, Israel will have much more to say about the nuclear negotiations, as they proceed. The question is, why is the president so anxious to arm Iran, our sworn enemy? Ego, arrogance and legacy must have something to do with the administration’s illogical adventure with Iran and his continuing attitude towards Congress.